The third rail buzzword of Socialism is being applied to the idea of Health Care reform.

It is a charged word - whether because of 50 years of Cold War in which the United States emerged victorious, or because of visions of Granny dying for lack of a procedure otherwise available via Medicare, or even the thought of having to wait in line for a hospital or doctor visit.

Yet the most amusing, yet pathetic aspect of this situation is that socialism is already upon us.

First, let's look at some definitions of socialism:

1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism


so·cial·ism
























(ssh-lzm)

n. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism

Noun
  • S: (n) socialism (a political theory advocating state ownership of industry)
  • S: (n) socialism, socialist economy (an economic system based on state ownership of capital)

It seems clear from these definitions that socialism is the state or government ownership of industry, capital, and/or the means of producing and distributing goods.

The ownership can be collectively or via a centralized government that plans or controls the economy.

Well, last I looked, the US government now owns:

1) a big chunk of the American auto industry: Ford and Chrysler

http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2009/05/...-union-gets-hu

2) a big chunk of the banking industry: Citibank as well as large stakes in numerous other financial firms

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1075...-a-lot-anymore

3) a big chunk of the insurance industry: AIG as well as large cash infusions via Fed programs to a number of other insurance companies who are now banks

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122156561931242905.html (takeover 9/2008)

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv...4A92FM20081110 ("double down" on original $85B to $150B)

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...cord-loss.html (4th bailout. I'm tired of posting AIG bailouts so skipped #3 and subsequent ones)

4) a big equity stake in General Electric - whatever $140,000,000,000 bought you in November 2008

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1059...e-point-of-aaa

5) almost all of the mortgage industry: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...cord-loss.html

6) and via the above, and once foreclosures wind through, a big chunk of American residential property

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/f...ued-2009/28343

7) Even amongst the population, the government is already directly supporting over 1 in 9 Americans via food stamps. Or ration books by another outdated term

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...55270Y20090603

Even if we ignore the above, the ongoing reality is that the United States federal government and its quasi public/quasi private bed partner, the Federal Reserve, is in the ongoing process of buying a large part of America.

Is Socialism via government purchase so much different than Socialism via sovereign decree?

And why is socialism for bankers, insurance executives, automobile companies, banks, mortgage brokers, and General Electric acceptable when socialism for health care is not?

Why is socialism for food support for the poor acceptable but health care for everyone not?

Just wondering...